Ultrathin strut biodegradable polymer sirolimus-eluting stent versus durable polymer everolimus-eluting stent for percutaneous coronary revascularisation (BIOSCIENCE): a randomised, single-blind, non-inferiority trial

BACKGROUND Refinements in stent design affecting strut thickness, surface polymer, and drug release have improved clinical outcomes of drug-eluting stents. We aimed to compare the safety and efficacy of a novel, ultrathin strut cobalt-chromium stent releasing sirolimus from a biodegradable polymer with a thin strut durable polymer everolimus-eluting stent. METHODS We did a randomised, single-blind, non-inferiority trial with minimum exclusion criteria at nine hospitals in Switzerland. We randomly assigned (1:1) patients aged 18 years or older with chronic stable coronary artery disease or acute coronary syndromes undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention to treatment with biodegradable polymer sirolimus-eluting stents or durable polymer everolimus-eluting stents. Randomisation was via a central web-based system and stratified by centre and presence of ST segment elevation myocardial infarction. Patients and outcome assessors were masked to treatment allocation, but treating physicians were not. The primary endpoint, target lesion failure, was a composite of cardiac death, target vessel myocardial infarction, and clinically-indicated target lesion revascularisation at 12 months. A margin of 3·5% was defined for non-inferiority of the biodegradable polymer sirolimus-eluting stent compared with the durable polymer everolimus-eluting stent. Analysis was by intention to treat. The trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01443104. FINDINGS Between Feb 24, 2012, and May 22, 2013, we randomly assigned 2119 patients with 3139 lesions to treatment with sirolimus-eluting stents (1063 patients, 1594 lesions) or everolimus-eluting stents (1056 patients, 1545 lesions). 407 (19%) patients presented with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction. Target lesion failure with biodegradable polymer sirolimus-eluting stents (69 cases; 6·5%) was non-inferior to durable polymer everolimus-eluting stents (70 cases; 6·6%) at 12 months (absolute risk difference -0·14%, upper limit of one-sided 95% CI 1·97%, p for non-inferiority <0·0004). No significant differences were noted in rates of definite stent thrombosis (9 [0·9%] vs 4 [0·4%], rate ratio [RR] 2·26, 95% CI 0·70-7·33, p=0·16). In pre-specified stratified analyses of the primary endpoint, biodegradable polymer sirolimus-eluting stents were associated with improved outcome compared with durable polymer everolimus-eluting stents in the subgroup of patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (7 [3·3%] vs 17 [8·7%], RR 0·38, 95% CI 0·16-0·91, p=0·024, p for interaction=0·014). INTERPRETATION In a patient population with minimum exclusion criteria and high adherence to dual antiplatelet therapy, biodegradable polymer sirolimus-eluting stents were non-inferior to durable polymer everolimus-eluting stents for the combined safety and efficacy outcome target lesion failure at 12 months. The noted benefit in the subgroup of patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction needs further study. FUNDING Clinical Trials Unit, University of Bern, and Biotronik, Bülach, Switzerland.

Long-Term Comparison of Everolimus-Eluting and Biolimus-Eluting Stents in All-Comer Patients

AIMS: Second-generation everolimus-eluting stents (EES) are safer and more efficient than first-generation paclitaxel-eluting stents (PES). Third-generation biolimus-eluting stents (BES) have been found to be non-inferior to PES. To date, there is no available comparative study between EES and BES. We aimed to investigate the safety and efficacy of BES with biodegradable polymer compared to EES with durable polymer at a follow-up of two years in an unselected population of consecutively enrolled patients. METHODS AND RESULTS: A group of 814 consecutive patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) was enrolled between 2007 and 2010, of which 527 were treated with EES and 287 with BES implantation. Clinical outcome was compared in 200 pairs using propensity score matching. The primary endpoint was a composite of death, myocardial infarction (MI) and target vessel revascularisation (TVR) at two-year follow-up. Median follow-up was 22 months. The primary outcome occurred in 11.5% of EES and 10.5% of BES patients (HR 1.11, 95% CI: 0.61-2.00, p=0.74). At two years, there was no significant difference with regard to death (HR 0.49, 95% CI: 0.18-1.34, p=0.17), cardiac death (HR 0.14, 95% CI: 0.02-1.14, p=0.66) or MI (HR 6.10, 95% CI: 0.73-50.9, p=0.10). Stent thrombosis (ST) incidence was evenly distributed between EES (n=2) and BES (n=2) (p-value=1.0). CONCLUSIONS: This first clinical study failed to demonstrate any significant difference regarding safety or efficacy between these two types and generations of drug-eluting stents (DES).

Comparison of everolimus- and biolimus-eluting stents with everolimus-eluting bioresorbable vascular scaffold stents: study protocol of the randomized controlled EVERBIO II

BACKGROUND: Second-generation everolimus-eluting stents (EES) and third generation biolimus-eluting stents (BES) have been shown to be superior to first-generation paclitaxel-eluting stents (PES) and second-generation sirolimus-eluting stents (SES). However, neointimal proliferation and very late stent thrombosis is still an unresolved issue of drug-eluting stent (DES) implantation overall. The Absorb™ (Abbott Vascular, Abbott Park, IL, USA) is the first CE approved DES with a bioresorbable vascular scaffold (BVS) thought to reduce long-term complication rates. The EVERBIO II trial was set up to compare the BVS safety and efficacy with both EES and BES in all patients viable for inclusion. METHODS/DESIGN: The EVERBIO II trial is a single-center, assessor-blinded, randomized trial. The study population consists of all patients aged≥18 years old undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention. Exclusion criterion is where the lesion cannot be treated with BVS (reference vessel diameter>4.0 mm). A total of 240 patients will be enrolled and randomly assigned into 3 groups of 80 with either BVS, EES or BES implantation. All patients will undergo a follow-up angiography study at 9 months. Clinical follow-up for up to 5 years will be conducted by telephone. The primary endpoint is in-segment late lumen loss at 9 months measured by quantitative coronary angiography. Secondary endpoints are patient-oriented major adverse cardiac event (MACE) (death, myocardial infarction and target-vessel revascularization), device-oriented MACE (cardiac death, myocardial infarction and target-lesion revascularization), stent thrombosis according to ARC and binary restenosis at follow-up 12 months angiography. DISCUSSION: EVERBIO II is an independent, randomized study, aiming to compare the clinical efficacy, angiographic outcomes and safety of BVS, EES and BES in all comer patients. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The trial listed in clinicaltrials.gov as NCT01711931.

Incidence and Imaging Outcomes of Acute Scaffold Disruption and Late Structural Discontinuity After Implantation of the Absorb Everolimus-Eluting Fully Bioresorbable Vascular Scaffold: Optical Coherence Tomography Assessment in the ABSORB Cohort B Trial (A Clinical Evaluation of the Bioabsorbable Everolimus Eluting Coronary Stent System in the Treatment of Patients With De Novo Native Coronary Artery Lesions).

OBJECTIVES This study sought to describe the frequency and clinical impact of acute scaffold disruption and late strut discontinuity of the second-generation Absorb bioresorbable polymeric vascular scaffolds (Absorb BVS, Abbott Vascular, Santa Clara, California) in the ABSORB (A Clinical Evaluation of the Bioabsorbable Everolimus Eluting Coronary Stent System in the Treatment of Patients With De Novo Native Coronary Artery Lesions) cohort B study by optical coherence tomography (OCT) post-procedure and at 6, 12, 24, and 36 months. BACKGROUND Fully bioresorbable scaffolds are a novel approach to treatment for coronary narrowing that provides transient vessel support with drug delivery capability without the long-term limitations of metallic drug-eluting stents. However, a potential drawback of the bioresorbable scaffold is the potential for disruption of the strut network when overexpanded. Conversely, the structural discontinuity of the polymeric struts at a late stage is a biologically programmed fate of the scaffold during the course of bioresorption. METHODS The ABSORB cohort B trial is a multicenter single-arm trial assessing the safety and performance of the Absorb BVS in the treatment of 101 patients with de novo native coronary artery lesions. The current analysis included 51 patients with 143 OCT pullbacks who underwent OCT at baseline and follow-up. The presence of acute disruption or late discontinuities was diagnosed by the presence on OCT of stacked, overhung struts or isolated intraluminal struts disconnected from the expected circularity of the device. RESULTS Of 51 patients with OCT imaging post-procedure, acute scaffold disruption was observed in 2 patients (3.9%), which could be related to overexpansion of the scaffold at the time of implantation. One patient had a target lesion revascularization that was presumably related to the disruption. Of 49 patients without acute disruption, late discontinuities were observed in 21 patients. There were no major adverse cardiac events associated with this finding except for 1 patient who had a non-ischemia-driven target lesion revascularization. CONCLUSIONS Acute scaffold disruption is a rare iatrogenic phenomenon that has been anecdotally associated with anginal symptoms, whereas late strut discontinuity is observed in approximately 40% of patients and could be viewed as a serendipitous OCT finding of a normal bioresorption process without clinical implications. (ABSORB Clinical Investigation, Cohort B [ABSORB B]; NCT00856856).

Stent thrombosis in early-generation drug-eluting stents versus newer-generation everolimus-eluting stent assorted by LVEF.

OBJECTIVE Everolimus drug-eluting stents (EES) are superior to early-generation drug-eluting stents (DES), releasing sirolimus (SES) or paclitaxel (PES) in preventing stent thrombosis (ST). Since an impaired LVEF seems to increase the risk of ST, we aimed to investigate the difference in outcome of patients with varying LVEF using EES versus early-generation DES. METHODS In a prospective cohort study, we compared the risk of ST in patients in three LVEF subgroups: normal (LVEF >50%), mildly impaired (LVEF >40% and ≤50%) and moderate-severely impaired (LVEF ≤40%). Within these various LVEF groups, we compared EES with SES and PES after adjustment for baseline differences. RESULTS We assessed a cohort of 5363 patients, with follow-up of up to 4 years and available LVEF. Overall definite ST occurred in 123 (2.3%) patients. ST rates were higher in the LVEF moderate-severely impaired group compared with the normal LVEF group (2.8% vs 2.1%; HR 1.82; CI 1.10 to 3.00). Especially early ST (EST) was more frequent in the moderate-severely impaired LVEF group (HR 2.20; CI 1.06 to 4.53). Overall rates of definite ST were lower in patients using EES compared with patients using SES or PES in all LVEF groups. Interaction terms were not statistically significant. ST rates were higher in the moderate-severely impaired LVEF group compared with the normal LVEF group when using SES or PES, but not significantly different when using EES. CONCLUSIONS EES was associated with a lower risk of definite ST compared with early-generation DES. This lower risk was independent of LVEF, even though ST rates were higher in patients with a moderate-severely impaired LVEF. TRIAL REGISTRATION NO MEC-2013-262.

4-year clinical outcomes and predictors of repeat revascularization in patients treated with new-generation drug-eluting stents: a report from the RESOLUTE All-Comers trial (A Randomized Comparison of a Zotarolimus-Eluting Stent With an Everolimus-Eluting Stent for Percutaneous Coronary Intervention)

OBJECTIVES The aim of the study was to investigate 4-year outcomes and predictors of repeat revascularization in patients treated with the Resolute zotarolimus-eluting stent (R-ZES) (Medtronic, Minneapolis, Minnesota) and XIENCE V everolimus-eluting stent (EES) (Abbott Vascular, Abbott Park, Illinois) in the RESOLUTE (A Randomized Comparison of a Zotarolimus-Eluting Stent With an Everolimus-Eluting Stent for Percutaneous Coronary Intervention) All-Comers trial. BACKGROUND Data on long-term outcomes of new-generation drug-eluting stents are limited, and predictors of repeat revascularization due to restenosis and/or progression of disease are largely unknown. METHODS Patients were randomly assigned to treatment with the R-ZES (n = 1,140) or the EES (n = 1,152). We assessed pre-specified safety and efficacy outcomes at 4 years including target lesion failure and stent thrombosis. Predictors of revascularization at 4 years were identified by Cox regression analysis. RESULTS At 4 years, the rates of target lesion failure (15.2% vs. 14.6%, p = 0.68), cardiac death (5.4% vs. 4.7%, p = 0.44), and target vessel myocardial infarction (5.3% vs. 5.4%, p = 1.00), clinically-indicated target lesion revascularization (TLR) (7.0% vs. 6.5%, p = 0.62), and definite/probable stent thrombosis (2.3% vs. 1.6%, p = 0.23) were similar with the R-ZES and EES. Independent predictors of TLR were age, insulin-treated diabetes, SYNTAX (Synergy between PCI with Taxus and Cardiac Surgery) score, treatment of saphenous vein grafts, ostial lesions, and in-stent restenosis. Independent predictors of any revascularization were age, diabetes, previous percutaneous coronary intervention, absence of ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction, smaller reference vessel diameter, SYNTAX score, and treatment of left anterior descending, right coronary artery, saphenous vein grafts, ostial lesions, or in-stent restenosis. CONCLUSIONS R-ZES and EES demonstrated similar safety and efficacy throughout 4 years. TLR represented less than one-half of all repeat revascularization procedures. Patient- and lesion-related factors predicting the risk of TLR and any revascularization showed considerable overlap. (A Randomized Comparison of a Zotarolimus-Eluting Stent With an Everolimus-Eluting Stent for Percutaneous Coronary Intervention [RESOLUTE-AC]; NCT00617084).

Comparison of a Novel Biodegradable Polymer Sirolimus-Eluting Stent With a Durable Polymer Everolimus-Eluting Stent: Results of the Randomized BIOFLOW-II Trial.

BACKGROUND Biodegradable polymers for release of antiproliferative drugs from drug-eluting stents aim to improve vascular healing. We assessed noninferiority of a novel ultrathin strut drug-eluting stent releasing sirolimus from a biodegradable polymer (Orsiro, O-SES) compared with the durable polymer Xience Prime everolimus-eluting stent (X-EES) in terms of the primary end point in-stent late lumen loss at 9 months. METHODS AND RESULTS A total of 452 patients were randomly assigned 2:1 to treatment with O-SES (298 patients, 332 lesions) or X-EES (154 patients, 173 lesions) in a multicenter, noninferiority trial. The primary end point was in-stent late loss at 9 months. O-SES was noninferior to X-EES for the primary end point (0.10±0.32 versus 0.11±0.29 mm; difference=0.00063 mm; 95% confidence interval, -0.06 to 0.07; Pnoninferiority<0.0001). Clinical outcome showed similar rates of target-lesion failure at 1 year (O-SES 6.5% versus X-EES 8.0%; hazard ratio=0.82; 95% confidence interval, 0.40-1.68; log-rank test: P=0.58) without cases of stent thrombosis. A subgroup of patients (n=55) underwent serial optical coherence tomography at 9 months, which demonstrated similar neointimal thickness among lesions allocated to O-SES and X-EES (0.10±0.04 mm versus 0.11±0.04 mm; -0.01 [-0.04, -0.01]; P=0.37). Another subgroup of patients (n=56) underwent serial intravascular ultrasound at baseline and 9 months indicating a potential difference in neointimal area at follow-up (O-SES, 0.16±0.33 mm(2) versus X-EES, 0.43±0.56 mm(2); P=0.04). CONCLUSIONS Compared with durable polymer X-EES, novel biodegradable polymer-based O-SES was found noninferior for the primary end point in-stent late lumen loss at 9 months. Clinical event rates were comparable without cases of stent thrombosis throughout 1 year of follow-up. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION URL http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT01356888.

Safety and efficacy of resolute zotarolimus-eluting stents compared with everolimus-eluting stents: a meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND Although new-generation drug-eluting stents represent the standard of care among patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention, there remains debate about differences in efficacy and the risk of stent thrombosis between the Resolute zotarolimus-eluting stent (R-ZES) and the everolimus-eluting stent (EES). The aim of this study was to evaluate the safety and efficacy of the R-ZES compared with EES in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention. METHODS AND RESULTS A systematic literature search of electronic resources was performed using specific search terms until September 2014. Random-effects meta-analysis was performed comparing clinical outcomes between patients treated with R-ZES and EES up to maximum available follow-up. The primary efficacy end point was target-vessel revascularization. The primary safety end point was definite or probable stent thrombosis. Secondary safety end points were cardiac death and target-vessel myocardial infarction. Five trials were identified, including a total of 9899 patients. Compared with EES, R-ZES had similar risks of target-vessel revascularization (risk ratio [RR], 1.06; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.90-1.24; P=0.50), definite or probable stent thrombosis (RR, 1.26; 95% CI, 0.86-1.85; P=0.24), cardiac death (RR, 1.01; 95% CI, 0.79-1.30; P=0.91), and target-vessel myocardial infarction (RR, 1.10; 95% CI, 0.89-1.36; P=0.39). Moreover, R-ZES and EES had similar risks of late definite or probable very late stent thrombosis (RR, 1.06; 95% CI, 0.53-2.11; P=0.87). No evidence of significant heterogeneity was observed across trials. CONCLUSIONS R-ZES and EES provide similar safety and efficacy among patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention.

Clinical Outcomes According to Diabetic Status in Patients Treated With Biodegradable Polymer Sirolimus-Eluting Stents Versus Durable Polymer Everolimus-Eluting Stents: Prespecified Subgroup Analysis of the BIOSCIENCE Trial.

BACKGROUND Ultrathin strut biodegradable polymer sirolimus-eluting stents (BP-SES) proved noninferior to durable polymer everolimus-eluting stents (DP-EES) for a composite clinical end point in a population with minimal exclusion criteria. We performed a prespecified subgroup analysis of the Ultrathin Strut Biodegradable Polymer Sirolimus-Eluting Stent Versus Durable Polymer Everolimus-Eluting Stent for Percutaneous Coronary Revascularisation (BIOSCIENCE) trial to compare the performance of BP-SES and DP-EES in patients with diabetes mellitus. METHODS AND RESULTS BIOSCIENCE trial was an investigator-initiated, single-blind, multicentre, randomized, noninferiority trial comparing BP-SES versus DP-EES. The primary end point, target lesion failure, was a composite of cardiac death, target-vessel myocardial infarction, and clinically indicated target lesion revascularization within 12 months. Among a total of 2119 patients enrolled between February 2012 and May 2013, 486 (22.9%) had diabetes mellitus. Overall diabetic patients experienced a significantly higher risk of target lesion failure compared with patients without diabetes mellitus (10.1% versus 5.7%; hazard ratio [HR], 1.80; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.27-2.56; P=0.001). At 1 year, there were no differences between BP-SES versus DP-EES in terms of the primary end point in both diabetic (10.9% versus 9.3%; HR, 1.19; 95% CI, 0.67-2.10; P=0.56) and nondiabetic patients (5.3% versus 6.0%; HR, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.58-1.33; P=0.55). Similarly, no significant differences in the risk of definite or probable stent thrombosis were recorded according to treatment arm in both study groups (4.0% versus 3.1%; HR, 1.30; 95% CI, 0.49-3.41; P=0.60 for diabetic patients and 2.4% versus 3.4%; HR, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.39-1.25; P=0.23, in nondiabetics). CONCLUSIONS In the prespecified subgroup analysis of the BIOSCIENCE trial, clinical outcomes among diabetic patients treated with BP-SES or DP-EES were comparable at 1 year. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT01443104.

Influence of CYP3A5 genetic variation on everolimus maintenance dosing after cardiac transplantation

BACKGROUND Everolimus (ERL) has become an alternative to calcineurin inhibitors (CNIs) due to its renal-sparing properties, especially in heart transplant (HTx) recipients with kidney dysfunction. However, ERL dosing is challenging due to its narrow therapeutic window combined with high inter-individual pharmacokinetic variability. Our aim was to evaluate the effect of clinical and genetic factors on ERL dosing in a pilot cohort of 37 HTx recipients. METHODS Variants in CYP3A5, CYP3A4, CYP2C8, POR, NR1I2, and ABCB1 were genotyped and clinical data were retrieved from patient charts. RESULTS While ERL trough concentration (C0 ) was within the targeted range for most patients, over 30-fold variability in the dose-adjusted ERL C0 was observed. Regression analysis revealed a significant effect of the non-functional CYP3A5*3 variant on the dose-adjusted ERL C0 (P = 0.031). ERL dose requirement was 0.02 mg/kg/day higher in patients with CYP3A5*1/*3 genotype compared to patients with CYP3A5*3/*3 to reach the targeted C0 (P = 0.041). ERL therapy substantially improved estimated glomerular filtration rate (28.6 ± 6.6 ml/min/1.73m(2) ) in patients with baseline kidney dysfunction. CONCLUSION ERL pharmacokinetics in HTx recipients is highly variable. Our preliminary data on patients on a CNI-free therapy regimen suggest that CYP3A5 genetic variation may contribute to this variability. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

Biodegradable polymer sirolimus-eluting stents versus durable polymer everolimus-eluting stents for primary percutaneous coronary revascularisation of acute myocardial infarction.

AIMS Our aim was to compare the safety and efficacy of a novel, ultrathin strut, biodegradable polymer sirolimus-eluting stent (BP-SES) with a thin strut, durable polymer everolimus-eluting stent (DP-EES) in a pre-specified subgroup of patients with acute ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) enrolled in the BIOSCIENCE trial. METHODS AND RESULTS The BIOSCIENCE trial is an investigator-initiated, single-blind, multicentre, randomised non-inferiority trial (NCT01443104). Randomisation was stratified according to the presence or absence of STEMI. The primary endpoint, target lesion failure (TLF), is a composite of cardiac death, target vessel myocardial infarction, and clinically indicated target lesion revascularisation within 12 months. Between February 2012 and May 2013, 407 STEMI patients were randomly assigned to treatment with BP-SES or DP-EES. At one year, TLF occurred in seven (3.4%) patients treated with BP-SES and 17 (8.8%) patients treated with DP-EES (RR 0.38, 95% CI: 0.16-0.91, p=0.024). Rates of cardiac death were 1.5% in the BP-SES group and 4.7% in the DP-EES group (RR 0.31, 95% CI: 0.08-1.14, p=0.062); rates of target vessel myocardial infarction were 0.5% and 2.6% (RR 0.18, 95% CI: 0.02-1.57, p=0.082), respectively, and rates of clinically indicated target lesion revascularisation were 1.5% in the BP-SES group versus 2.1% in the DP-EES group (RR 0.69, 95% CI: 0.16-3.10, p=0.631). There was no difference in the risk of definite stent thrombosis. CONCLUSIONS In this pre-specified subgroup analysis, BP-SES was associated with a lower rate of target lesion failure at one year compared to DP-EES in STEMI patients. These findings require confirmation in a dedicated STEMI trial.

Everolimus-eluting bioresorbable stent vs. durable polymer everolimus-eluting metallic stent in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction: results of the randomized ABSORB ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction-TROFI II trial.

AIMS Patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) feature thrombus-rich lesions with large necrotic core, which are usually associated with delayed arterial healing and impaired stent-related outcomes. The use of bioresorbable vascular scaffolds (Absorb) has the potential to overcome these limitations owing to restoration of native vessel lumen and physiology at long term. The purpose of this randomized trial was to compare the arterial healing response at short term, as a surrogate for safety and efficacy, between the Absorb and the metallic everolimus-eluting stent (EES) in patients with STEMI. METHODS AND RESULTS ABSORB-STEMI TROFI II was a multicentre, single-blind, non-inferiority, randomized controlled trial. Patients with STEMI who underwent primary percutaneous coronary intervention were randomly allocated 1:1 to treatment with the Absorb or EES. The primary endpoint was the 6-month optical frequency domain imaging healing score (HS) based on the presence of uncovered and/or malapposed stent struts and intraluminal filling defects. Main secondary endpoint included the device-oriented composite endpoint (DOCE) according to the Academic Research Consortium definition. Between 06 January 2014 and 21 September 2014, 191 patients (Absorb [n = 95] or EES [n = 96]; mean age 58.6 years old; 17.8% females) were enrolled at eight centres. At 6 months, HS was lower in the Absorb arm when compared with EES arm [1.74 (2.39) vs. 2.80 (4.44); difference (90% CI) -1.06 (-1.96, -0.16); Pnon-inferiority <0.001]. Device-oriented composite endpoint was also comparably low between groups (1.1% Absorb vs. 0% EES). One case of definite subacute stent thrombosis occurred in the Absorb arm (1.1% vs. 0% EES; P = ns). CONCLUSION Stenting of culprit lesions with Absorb in the setting of STEMI resulted in a nearly complete arterial healing which was comparable with that of metallic EES at 6 months. These findings provide the basis for further exploration in clinically oriented outcome trials.

Arterial healing following primary PCI using the Absorb everolimus-eluting bioresorbable vascular scaffold (Absorb BVS) versus the durable polymer everolimus-eluting metallic stent (XIENCE) in patients with acute ST-elevation myocardial infarction: rationale and design of the randomised TROFI II study

AIMS The Absorb bioresorbable vascular scaffold (Absorb BVS) provides similar clinical outcomes compared with a durable polymer-based everolimus-eluting metallic stent (EES) in stable coronary artery disease patients. ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) lesions have been associated with delayed arterial healing and impaired stent-related outcomes. The purpose of the present study is to compare directly the arterial healing response, angiographic efficacy and clinical outcomes between the Absorb BVS and metallic EES. METHODS AND RESULTS A total of 191 patients with acute STEMI were randomly allocated to treatment with the Absorb BVS or a metallic EES 1:1. The primary endpoint is the neointimal healing (NIH) score, which is calculated based on a score taking into consideration the presence of uncovered and malapposed stent struts, intraluminal filling defects and excessive neointimal proliferation, as detected by optical frequency domain imaging (OFDI) six months after the index procedure. The study will provide 90% power to show non-inferiority of the Absorb BVS compared with the EES. CONCLUSIONS This will be the first randomised study investigating the arterial healing response following implantation of the Absorb BVS compared with the EES. The healing response assessed by a novel NIH score in conjunction with results on angiographic efficacy parameters and device-oriented events will elucidate disease-specific applications of bioresorbable scaffolds.